1 CGHC010220422026 2026:CGHC:29032 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5150 of 2026 Naveen Kumar Joon S/o Azad Singh Aged About 33 Years R/o Sonipat, Sonipat Sehar, Sonipat (Hariyana) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Chakarbhata Police Station Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Janu Khare along with MS. Karuna Masih, Advocates For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Sumit Singh, Dy. Advocate General. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 10.07.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 180/2026 registered at Police Station - Chakarbhata, District – Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 340(2), 61(2), 338 and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act. 2. As per the prosecution story, according to FIR No. 180/2026, annexed herewith as Annexure A/2, on 10.06.2024, the complainant allegedly received a Demand Draft of 103 crores from a person named Grace ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.07.13 11:47:23 +0530 2 David, purportedly residing in the United Kingdom. It is alleged that the said Demand Draft was under investigation by the Union Bank of India (Customs Department), Union Bank of India, Karol Bagh, Delhi, the Reserve Bank of India, Delhi, and the Enforcement Directorate, Delhi. It is further alleged that the complainant was asked, through various email IDs, to deposit money for the purpose of clearing the said Demand Draft. Thereafter, an employee of HDFC Bank allegedly advised the complainant to contact Naveen Kumar Joon for matters relating to the bank. Pursuant thereto, the complainant contacted Naveen Kumar Joon and deposited money from various bank accounts belonging to himself and his family members into the accounts of the accused persons, as instructed, for onward transfer to different individuals. Subsequently, the complainant lodged a complaint against the accused persons, on the basis of which FIR No. 180/2026 came to be registered. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the the applicant is engaged in the profession of providing financial consultancy and loan facilitation services. It is respectfully submitted that the complainant, while acting in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy, has falsely implicated the applicant in relation to the alleged clearance of a disputed Demand Draft. It is further submitted that the complainant has orchestrated a false case against the applicant to conceal his own involvement in the alleged conspiracy, particularly after the said Demand Draft failed to be cleared. He also submits that the applicant did not initiate contact with the complainant. Rather, it was the complainant who approached the applicant for assistance in facilitating the clearance of the disputed Demand Draft. This itself demonstrates that the applicant did not induce or deceive the complainant in any manner. The applicant merely acted as 3 a financial consultant/agent on behalf of the complainant. Even assuming, without admitting, that the complainant was dissatisfied with the consultancy or services rendered by the applicant, the appropriate remedy would have been before the Consumer Forum or by way of appropriate civil proceedings. The initiation of criminal proceedings is wholly misconceived, malicious, and an abuse of the process of law. He also submits that the complainant was fully aware that making illegal payments to any person for the purpose of procuring the clearance of a disputed Demand Draft would not only interfere with the investigation but could also amount to a punishable offence. The complainant is himself a learned Advocate practicing before the Hon’ble High Court and is well acquainted with the legal consequences of such acts. These circumstances indicate that the present complaint has not been instituted bona fide but has been filed with an ulterior motive and out of malice. He submits that additional penal provisions were subsequently incorporated in the First Information Report solely with a view to ensuring that the applicant remains in custody for a prolonged period. Such conduct on the part of the prosecution clearly demonstrates that the applicant has been falsely implicated. He submits that the co-accused has already been granted the benefit of anticipatory bail by this Hon’ble Court in MCRCA No. 687/2026. The case of the present applicant stands on a similar footing, and he is therefore entitled to the benefit of parity. He submits that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 01.04.2026, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. Learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that, in compliance with this Court's order dated 17.06.2026, the Investigating Officer has filed a personal affidavit. He submits that, during the course of 4 investigation, it was revealed that the present applicant, in connivance with the other co-accused persons, was actively involved in a well- organized cyber fraud. The investigation further revealed that the applicant had access to and operated multiple bank accounts, including those maintained with Axis Bank, Airtel Payments Bank, State Bank of India, and HDFC Bank, through which transactions involving crores of rupees were routed. It is alleged that, in the present case, an amount of Rs. 3,13,13,850/- was fraudulently obtained from the complainant through these bank accounts. He further submits that the applicant, along with the other co-accused persons, created fake e-mail IDs in different names and sent fraudulent communications to the complainant on the pretext of facilitating the clearance of a demand draft amounting to Rs. 103 crores. On the strength of such false representations, the applicant is alleged to have dishonestly induced the complainant to transfer Rs. 3,13,13,850/-, which was subsequently diverted into various bank accounts as part of a pre-planned and organized criminal conspiracy. He submits that the manner in which the offence was executed clearly reflects an organized financial cyber crime involving multiple bank accounts, fabricated electronic communications, and coordinated acts of cheating. Therefore, considering the seriousness of the allegations and the applicant's active role in the alleged offence, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the nature and gravity of the allegations, the material collected during the course of investigation, and the personal affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer pursuant to the order of this Court dated 17.06.2026, 5 this Court finds that there are prima facie allegations indicating the applicant's active involvement in a well-organized cyber fraud involving the creation of fake e-mail IDs, the use of multiple bank accounts, and the fraudulent diversion of an amount of Rs. 3,13,13,850/- from the complainant under the false pretext of clearing a demand draft of Rs. 103 crores. The modus operandi alleged by the prosecution reflects a well- planned and organized financial cyber crime committed in concert with other co-accused persons. In view of the seriousness of the allegations, and the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case for grant of bail is made out. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant - Naveen Kumar Joon, involved in Crime No. 180/2026 registered at Police Station - Chakarbhata, District – Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 340(2), 61(2), 338 and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, is rejected. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek